Essay On Symposium And Lysistrata

The union of both sexes is a notable metaphor in both “Symposium” and “Lysistrata”; however, the nature of the love between the sexes draws a distinction between both works. In Symposium, Aristophanes described how both sexes were so powerful when united; and when they were separated, human beings still strived to be united once more by any means. On the other hand, in Lysistrata the characters were already married and united; however, women found their true strength when they started a psychological war on their men. Even though both works drew the readers’ attention to the need for love, Symposium emphasizes the union of sexes in a way that the characters in Lysistrata will never reach; where love is not only about sex and physical attraction, but it’s also about a healthy relationship occupied with affection and caring. In Lysistrata, men and women were entangled in an unhealthy relationship; it was based on the objectification of human beings. They didn’t care about anything but sexual pleasure. Women didn’t give much thought about how men are using them as a sex object and men didn’t concern themselves about their wives, families or even household responsibilities. One of the most compelling examples in the play, that supports

However, in Lysistrata, the characters never reach the kind of love Plato described in Symposium; where people would “have built noble temples and alters, and offered solemn sacrifices in his honour” (Plato, Symposium). In Lysistrata, even though the war ended, the nature of love between both sexes never changed; it was still based on sex. Personally, I think that men never understood the power and strength women possess, they only appreciated the sex more. Yet, in Symposium, both sexes were equal; Aristophanes never said that one sex was stronger than the other. Instead, he described how strong both were when united and how helpless both were when